dismissed H-1B Case: Finance And Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-T-F-A-
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cultural association, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary on a part-time basis 
as a "business/financial analyst" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
had not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional 
evidence and asserts that the Director erred when determining the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge, and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
,Matter of A-T-F-A-
(1) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an · 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that 
knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has consistently 
interpreted the term "degree" in the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to mean not just any 
baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed 
position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto.IJ, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree 
requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a 
particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
In the H-1 B petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as its "business/financial 
analyst." In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's major 
responsibilities/duties including the approximate percentage of time spent on the duties as follows: 
• Develops budgets and forecasts regarding cash and tracking and reporting on 
receivables and payables (10%) 
• Compile financial information through the use of accounting software and prepare 
entries to accounts such as general ledger accounts (1 0%) 
• Execute billing processes and process financial transactions and review/audit orders, 
vouchers, and contracts ( 10%) 
• Review expense budgets/reports and follow up on all questionable or invalid 
expenses (5%) 
• Manage payables, capital assets and associated depreciation (5%) 
• Audit company accounts (5%) 
• Analyze financial information detailing assets, liabilities, budget-to-actual 
comparison and financial forecast ( 1 0%) 
• Prepare monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports, including income 
statements, balance sheets and cash flow statements (15%) 
• Provide internal financial data and analysis which summarize and forecast business 
activity and financial position to aid in business decisions ( 10%) 
2 
Matter of A-T-F-A-
• Assist [the Petitioner's] executives in development of short term and long term 
financial plans, procurement and investment of funds (5%) 
• Recommend major economic /financial objectives and policies for [the Petitioner] 
(5%) 
• Develop and maintain financial systems including cost accounting/decision support 
systems and keep abreast of the latest financial ~alysis methods and technology 
(5%) 
• Prepare reports required by governmental agencies (5%) 
According to the Petitioner, to successfully perform these duties it requires the person in the offered 
position to possess a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, in business administration, accounting, 
finance, or a related field. 
III. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
Specifically, the record ( 1) does not describe the position's duties with sufficient detail; and (2) does 
not establish that the job duties require an educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate 
with a specialty occupation. 1 
On the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support of the H-1B petition, the Petitioner 
designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Accountants and Auditors" 
corresponding to the Standard Occupational Classification code 13-2011.2 Upon review of the 
general description of duties, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of what the 
Beneficiary will actually do in the proposed position so that we may analyze and ascertain the 
educational requirements required to perform.those duties. It is not possible to conclude from the 
description whether the Beneficiary will perform bookkeeping duties, whether he will perform the 
duties of a junior accountant, or whether he will provide business and financial advice and 
recommendations, and if so what those tasks actually entail. 
1 The Petitioner submitted documentation to support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position and its business operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
2 The Petitioner classified the proffered position at a Level I wage (the lowest of four assignable wage levels). We will 
consider this selection in our analysis of the position. The "Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance" issued by 
the DOL provides a description of the wage levels. A Level I wage rate is generally appropriate for positions for which 
the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to have a basic understanding of the occupation. This wage rate indicates: (1) that 
the Beneficiary will be expected to pe'rform routine tasks that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; (2) that he 
will be closely supervised and his work closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and (3) that he will receive 
specific instructions on required tasks and expected results. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & Training Admin., Prevailing 
Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), available at 
http://flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _Guidance_ Revised _11_ 2009.pdf A prevailing wage determination starts 
with an entry level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering the experience, education, and skill 
requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. !d. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-F-A-
The Petitioner claims that it is a 14-person nonprofit organization that promotes cultural 
l!nderstanding and offers social events, language and computer classes, career planning and 
development courses, and tutoring for children. On app<t,al, the Petitioner added that in addition to 
its headquarters in Virginia, it has several satellite offices and a number of volunteers. The 
Petitioner asserts that its members, contributors, and volunteer~ expect it to follow generally 
accepted accounting and financial practices and to make financi~l reports available on a regular 
basis.3 The Petitioner maintains that it would lose credibility if it did not employ a person who is 
highly educated and trained to manage its financial affairs. However, again upon review of the 
Petitioner's general description of the proffered position it is not possible to ascertain the duties that 
will actually engage the Beneficiary on a day-to-day basis in his involvement, if any, in the 
management of the Petitioner's financial affairs. That is, the Petitioner has not provided context for 
the generally described duties within the Petitioner's organization. The record does not include an 
organizational chart, evidence of the Petitioner's satellite offices and their employees or volunteers, 
or any other evidence sufficient to analyze the Beneficiary's actual duties as the duties specifically 
relate to the petitioning organization. 
The Petitioner's vague description of the duties of the proffered position therefore precludes a 
finding that the proffered position satisfies any criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), because it 
is the substantive nature of that work that determines (1) the normal minimum educational 
requirement for entry into the particular position, which is the focus of criterion 1; (2) industry 
positions which are parallel to the proffered position and thus appropriate for review for a common 
degree requirement, under the first alternate prong of criterion 2; (3) the level of complexity or 
uniqueness of the proffered position, which is the focus of the second alternate prong of criterion 2; 
( 4) the factual justification for a petitioner normally requiring a degree or its equivalent, when that is 
an issue under criterion 3; and (5) the degree of specialization and complexity of the specific duties, 
which is the focus of criterion 4. 
Accordingly, as the Petitioner has not established that it has satisfied any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A), it cannot be found that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a 
specialty occupation and the appeal must be dismissed on this basis alone. 
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument and assuming that the Beneficiary will perform the duties of 
an accountant/auditor as designated on the LCA, we will analyze the position and the evidence of 
record to determine whether the proffered position as described would qualify for classification as a 
specialty occupation. To that end and to make our determination as to whether the employment 
described above qualifies as a specialty occupation, we turn to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A). 
3 We note that the Petitioner uses a third party accounting firm to prepare its tax returns. The Petitioner does not explain 
the extent of its outside accounting firm's involvement in its financial and accounting operations or distinguish the 
Beneficiary's generally described duties with the duties of its accounting firm. 
4 
Matter of A-T-F-A-
A. First Criterion 
We tum first to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l), which requires that a baccalaureate 
or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for 
entry into the particular position. To inform this inquiry, we recognize the U.S. Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the 
duties and educational requirements of the wide variety of occupati-ons that it addresses.4 
Even if the proffered position had been sufficiently 'detailed to establish it as being that of an 
accountant/auditor, a review of the Handbook does not indicate that such a position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation in that the Handbook does not state a normal minimum requirement of a U.S. 
bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for entry into the occupation. 
Specifically, the Handbook states that "[m]ost accountant and auditor positions require at least a 
bachelor's degree in accounting or a related field." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Accountants and Auditors," 
http://www.bls.gov/oohlbusiness-and-financial/accountants-and-auditors.htm#tab-4 (last visited Oct. 
27, 2016). In addition, the Handbook indicates that some with an associate's degree, as well as 
bookkeepers and accounting clerks, may "advance to accountant positions by showing their 
accounting skills on the job." !d. 
While the Petitioner's broad description of the proposed duties incorporates some duties that may 
fall within the parameters of a junior accountant, the duties also include the duties of a bookkeeping 
or accounting clerk. 5 Moreover, according to the Petitioner the duties described do not require a 
bachelor's or higher degree in accounting. Rather, the Petitioner finds that a bachelor's degree in the 
general field of business administration will suffice to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
While we have reviewed the Petitioner's assertions on appeal, that the Beneficiary's foreign 
education has been evaluated to be equivalent to a bachelor's degree in business administration with 
a concentration in accounting and finance, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is 
not the education or experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at 
least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Here, the Petitioner acknowledges 
4 All of our references are to the 2016-2017 edition of the Handbook, which may be accessed at the Internet site 
http://www.b1s.gov/ooh/. We do not, however, maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive source of relevant 
information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is considered as an aspect in establishing the 
general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, and USC IS regularly reviews the Handbook on the duties and 
educational requirements of the wide variety of occupations that it addresses. To satisfy the first criterion, however, the 
burden of proof remains on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a finding that its particular position 
would normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
5 A bookkeeping position does not require a bachelor's degree, or higher in a specific field of study. Rather, according to 
the Handbook, employers generally require bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks to have some postsecondary 
education, particularly coursework ih accounting, but some candidates can be hired with just a high school diploma. See 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 ed., "Bookkeeping, 
Accounting, and Auditing Clerks," http://www.bls.gov/ooh/office-and-administrative-support/bookkeeping-accounting­
and-auditing-clerks.htm#tab-4 (last visited Oct. 27, 20 16). 
5 
Matter of A-T-F-A-
that a bachelor's degree in business administration, without any concentration, Is sufficient to 
perform the duties of the position it has generally described.6 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's designation of the proffered position at a Level I wage, 
demonstrating that the proffered position is a comparatively low, entry-level position relative to 
others within the occupation. That is, in accordance with the relevant DOL explanatory information 
on wage levels, this wage rate indicates that the Beneficiary is only required to have a basic 
understanding of the occupation and carries expectations that the Beneficiary perform routine tasks 
that require limited, if any, exercise of judgment; that he would be closely supervised; that his work 
would be closely monitored and reviewed for accuracy; and that he would receive specific 
instructions on required tasks and expected results. Thus, even if the proffered position incorporates 
some duties of an accounting position, the position is at a junior or entry-level accounting position 
(as indicated on the LCA), which according to the Handbook would not require a bachelor's degree 
in the specific field of accounting. 
When the Handbook does not support the proposition that a proffered position is one that meets the 
statutory and regulatory provisions of a specialty occupation, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to 
provide persuasive evidence that the proffered position more likely than not satisfies this or one of 
the other three criteria, notwithstanding the absence of the Handbook's support on the issue. In such 
case, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to provide probative evidence (e.g., documentation from 
other objective, authoritative sources) that supports a finding that the particular position in question 
qualifies as a specialty occupation. 7 Whenever more than one authoritative source exists, an 
6 The Petitioner stated that in order to perform the job duties of the proffered position, it requires the individual to 
possess a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, ih business administration, accounting, finance, or a related field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner accepts a degree in accounting or a degree in finance or a degree in business administration 
as sufficient to perform the duties of its business/financial analyst. However, a petitioner must demonstrate that the 
proffered position requires a precise and specific course of study that relates directly and closely to the position in 
question. Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, the 
requirement of a degree with a generalized title, such as business administration, without further specification, does not 
establish the position as a specialty occupation. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 
1988). Although a general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business administration, may be a legitimate 
prerequisite for a particular position, requiring such a degree, without more, will not justifY a finding that a particular 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 
2007). We note, however, that a general degree requirement does not necessarily preclude a proffered position from 
qualifYing as a specialty occupation. For example, an entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in business 
administration with a concentration in a specific field, or a bachelor's or higher degree in business administration 
combined with relevant education, training, and/or experience may, in certain instances, qualifY the proffered position as 
a specialty occupation. In either case, it must be demonstrated that the entry requirement is equivalent to a bachelor's or 
higher degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proffered position. See !d. Here the Petitioner does not 
state that the position requires a degree in business administration with a specific concentration. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner's acknowledgement that a business administration degree is adequate preparation to perform the duties of the 
proffered position undermines its assertion that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
7 
The Petitioner has submitted two opinions in support of its claim that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
We will discuss both opinions in the next section. 
6 
Matter of A-T-F-A-
adjudicator will consider and weigh all of the evidence presented to determine whether the particular 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
1 
In this case, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position falls under an occupational 
category for which the Handbook, or other authoritative source, indicates that normally the 
minimum requirement for entry is at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the particular position 
proffered here, an entry-level accountant position (as indicated on the LCA), would normally have 
such a minimum, specialty degree requirement or its equivalent. The duties and requirements of the 
position as described in the record of proceeding do not indicate that this particular position 
proffered by the Petitioner is one for which a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, 
or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: "The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may 
show that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree[.]" 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong 
focuses upon the common industry practice, while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the 
Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent) is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
In determining whether there is such a common degree requirement, factors often considered by 
USCIS include: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the 
industry's professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether 
letters or affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ 
and recruit only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 
1999) (quoting Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 711 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). 
\ 
Here and as already discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the proffered position is one for 
which the Handbook (or other independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide 
requirement for at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we 
incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the matter. Also, there are no submissions from 
the industry's professional association indicating that it has made a degree a minimum entry 
requirement. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-F-A-
We have reviewed the four letters and accompanying documentation from organizations the 
Petitioner claims are in the same industry and thus similar to it and which have been offered, in part, 
to establish that similar organizations "routinely employ and recruit only degreed individuals." The 
representatives of the the the 
and the each 
confirm that a bachelor's degree in a specific field of study or its equivalent is the minimum 
educational requirement to perform the duties of their business/financial analyst. Three of the four 
letter-writers state that a Bachelor's degree in a specific concentration such as business 
administration is the standard requirement; the fourth representative does not identify any specific 
field of study. As referenced above, however, a general degree, or a degree of general applicability, 
such as a degree in business administration, does not establish a position as a specialty occupation. 
We also considered that each of the representatives included a copy of a diploma, transcript, and 
paystub to demonstrate that they employed an individual with a bachelor's degree. However, the 
record does not include probative evidence of the actual duties of any of the business/financial 
analysts' positions referenced and thus we cannot ascertain that the referenced positions are parallel 
to the proffered position.8 
In this matter, the Petitioner takes issue with our interpretation of the Act as requiring a degree in a 
specific specialty. The Petitioner asserts that the language of the Act does not require a single 
degree but rather states -that "a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent)" is the minimum needed to establish a position as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner 
references the decision in Residential Finance Corp. v. USCIS, 839 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 
2012) as rejecting the requirement that a degree must be in only one specific academic major or have 
a specific title in order to qualify as a specialty occupation. We agree with the Residential Finance 
court that "[t]he knowledge and not the title of the degree is what is important." 
In general, provided the specialties are closely related, e.g., chemistry and biochemistry, a minimum 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in more than one specialty is recognized as satisfying the "degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent)" requirement of section 214(i)(l )(B) of the Act. In such a 
case, the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" would essentially be the same. Since 
there must be a close correlation between the required "body of highly specialized knowledge" and 
the position, however, a minimum entry requirement of a degree in two disparate fields, such as 
philosophy and engineering, would not meet the statutory requirement that the degree be "in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent)," unless the Petitioner establishes how each field is directly 
related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position such that the required body of 
highly specialized knowledge is essentially an amalgamation of these different specialties. Section 
214(i)(l)(B) of the Act (emphasis added). In this matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
detail of the actual duties of the proffered position to establish that the position as generally 
8 While the Petitioner asserts that one ·of the letter-writer's business/financial analysts was approved for an H-1 B 
specialty occupation visa, the record here does not include documentary evidence of the approval. Moreover, if the 
approval was based on the same or similar information as found in this record, the approval would be gross error on the 
part of the Director. 
8 
-----------------------------------------
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-F-A-
described constitutes an occupation that requires highly specialized knowledge attained by a course 
of study leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
In any event, the Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition 
are analogous to those in Residential Finance.9 We also note that, in contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, we are not bound to follow the 
published decision of a United States district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying_a district judge 's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before us, 
the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. 
The evidence of record does not establish that a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is common to parallel positions with organizations that are in the 
Petitioner's industry and otherwise similar to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not, therefore, 
satisfied the criterion ofthe first alternative prong of8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
We will next consider the second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2), which is 
satisfied if the Petitioner shows that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be 
performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
In this matter, although the Petitioner claims that the proffered position's duties are so complex that a 
bachelor's degree is required, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how its business/financial analyst's 
duties require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge such 
that a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform them. 
The Petitioner submitted two opinions in support of its assertion that the proffered position is so 
complex that it can only be performed by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent. The first letter, prepared by President of 
was submitted in response to the Director's RFE. noted that she 
based her opinion on the Petitioner's list of duties for the proffered position and the Petitioner's 
description of its business. She opined that the job duties described "are both complex and 
specialized and include tasks that would require strong analytical and problem-solving abilitie,s 
acquired in four years of academic study towards the U.S. Bachelor's degree in Business 
Administration, Finance, Accounting or related area." She lists over 50 courses and asserts that 
9 It is noted that the district judge's decision in that case appears to have been based largely on the many factual errors 
made by the Director in the decision denying the petition . .. We further note thatthe Director's decision was not appealed 
to us. Based on the district court 's findings and description of the record, if that matter had first been appealed through 
the available administrative process , we may very well have remanded the matter to the service center for a new decision 
for many of the same reasons articulated by the district court if these errors could not have been remedied by us in our de 
novo review ofthe matter. 
9 
(b)(6)
' Matter of A-T-F-A-
these courses are standard topics taken in pursuit of a business administration, accounting; or finance 
degree. She finds, without analysis, that these courses would provide the required knowledge to 
perform the duties of the proffered position. 
We first note that does not list any reference materials on which she relied as a basis for 
her conclusion. It thus appears that did not base her opinion on any objective evidence, 
but instead on the general position description as provided by the Petitioner. We also observe that 
finds that the proffered position requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, accounting, or finance, or a related area. However, as we referenced above, even if 
established by the evidence of record, the requirement of a bachelor's degree in business 
administration, without a specific concentration, is inadequate to establish that a position qualifies as 
a specialty occupation. Therefore, the letter from does not support the Petitioner's 
assertion that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The Petitioner submitted the second opinion letter on a motion to reopen the Director's decision. 
Ph.D., Associate Dean-
prepared the letter. based his opinion on his experience, the Petitioner's 
description of duties, and information provided by the Petitioner regarding the nature of its business. 
opined that a business/financial analyst with the duties described would be considered 
a professional position and "would normally b~ filled by a graduate with a minimum of a Bachelor's 
Degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance, Accounting, or a related area, or 
the equivalent." also listed a number of courses that would provide the student "with 
the core competencies and skills needed for a Business/ Financial Analyst position." He identified 
four courses that would correspond to several of the duties the Petitioner listed. 
specifically noted that the duties described by the Petitioner were not the duties of a lower-level 
employee, but rather the duties of a professional employee with a strong business-related 
background and a great level of responsibility within the company. concluded that it 
is standard for a company such as the Petitioner to hire a business/financial analyst and require that 
individual to have attained at least a bachelor's degree in business administration with a 
concentration in finance, accounting, or a related area, and further that this is an industry standard. 
First, we note that does not acknowledge that the Petitioner identified a general 
business administration degree with no specific concentration as sufficient to perform the duties of 
the proffered position. Additionally, identified the proffered position as a position 
with a great level of responsibility in the company, He does not indicate in his opinion that he is 
aware that the Petitioner assigned a Level I wage to the proffered position, a wage-level which is 
appropriate for a comparatively low, entry-level accountant/auditor position, relative to others within 
the same occupation, and which signifies that the Beneficiary is only expected to possess a basic 
understanding of the occupation. Further, does not offer his analysis of the position 
and how his finding of its academic requirements differs from the Handbook's report on the 
academic requirements for an accountant/auditor, the occupational classification of the position on 
the certified LCA. Thus, opinion is not in accord with all the facts in the matter. 
Further, while references four particular courses that would assist the candidate in 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-T-F-A-
performing the listed duties, he did not explain or offer an analysis on why a specific curriculum, not 
just a few courses, is necessary to perform the duties described. Thus, we question the foundation of 
his opinion and his understanding of the Petitioner's own academic requirements and level of 
responsibility expected for the proffered position. 
attaches an overview of her accomplishments to her opinion and attaches 
his resume to his opinion. Upon review of this information, however, the attachments do not include 
references or other evidence that the authors published, conducted research, ran surveys, or engaged · 
in any enterprise regarding the minimum education requirements for the performance of the duties of 
an accountant/auditor or a business/financial analyst. While each author may have anecdotal 
information regarding recruitment by employers for students who have studied in a general business 
field, the record does not include any relevant research, studies, surveys, or other authoritative 
publications as part of their review and/or as a foundation for their opinions. Unsupported 
statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry a petitioner's burden 
of proof. See Matter of Sojjici , 22 I&N Dec. 15 8, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matter o.l Treasure 
Craft ofCal. , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' l Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 201 0). The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. We also note that the opinion-writers do 
not relate personal observations of the Petitioner's operations or of the actual work the Beneficiary 
would perform. Thus, we further question the foundation of their opinions. 
For these reasons, we do not find the opinions sufficient to support the Petitioner's assertion that the 
proffered position is complex and normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, and thus qualifies as a specialty occupation. We may, in our discretion, use opinion 
statements submitted by the Petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron lnt 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Comm'r 1988). However, where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any 
way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. ld. 
Upon review, the record does not include sufficient probative information relevant to a detailed 
course of study leading to a specialty degree and the Petitioner has not established how such a 
curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it claims are so complex. While a few related courses 
may be beneficial in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
how an established curriculum of suclf courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. 
Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has satisfied the second alternative prong of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it 
normally requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Here, 
the Petitioner asserted that it had previously employed as its business manager, that 
possessed a master's of business administration degree, and that USCIS had approved his 
II 
(b)(6) i' 
Matter of A-T-F-A-
employment in an H-lB classification. The Petitioner also noted that a volunteer, who is performing 
the duties of the proffered position, possesses a bachelor's degree in economics and had taken 
accounting and finance courses. The Petitioner submits diplomas and transcripts for each of these 
individuals. The Petitioner, however, does not include any evidence that it employs or has employed 
these individuals and has not identified the specific duties they p~rformed or are performing for it.10 
Additionally, while a petitioner may assert that a proffered position requires a degree in a specific 
specialty, that statement alone without corroborating evidence cannot establish the position as a 
specialty occupation. Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing a petitioner's claimed self-imposed 
requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United States to 
perform any occupation as long as the employer artificially created a token degree requirement , 
whereby all individuals employed in a particular position possessed 
a baccalaureate or higher degree 
in the specific specialty, or its equivalent. See Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F. 3d at 387. In other 
words, if a petitioner's degree requirement is only symbolic and the proffered position does not in 
fact require such a specialty degree, or its equivalent , to perform its duties , the occupation would not 
meet the statutory or regulatory definition of a specialty occupation . See section 214(i)(l) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation "). 11 
Here, the Petitioner has not established the referenced criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(iii)( A)( 3) 
based on its normal hiring practices. 12 · 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent. ' 
The Petitioner asserts that the job duties of the proffered position are specialized and complex and 
again refers to the opinions rendered by and We incorporate our previous 
discussion of these opinions and again refer to our earlier comments and findings with regard to the 
implication of the Petitioner's designation of the proffered pos.ition in the LCA as a Level I (the 
10 Again, it is not clear if the individual in the proffered position will be performing bookkeeping , entry-level accounting , 
or business /financial management duties. Both the bookkeeping and business/financial management positions may very 
well have requ'ired an LCA designated with a different occupational category to correspond to the petition. 
11 The Petitioner maintains that USCIS approved its previous employee, for H-1 B classification; however, 
the Petitioner does not establish that performed the same or similar duties as the Beneficiary would be 
expected to perform. In any event, if the prior H-1 B approval for was based on the same evidence as 
submitted in support of this petition, the Director's prior approval would constitute gross error. 
12 On appeal, the Petitioner notes that the Director referred to the proffered position as a healthcare service manager 
pos'ition when discussing this criterion. We find that the Director's error in identifying the proffered position in this 
section to be a typographical error and negligible when considering the overall analysis contained in thy decision. 
Nevertheless , we withdraw this reference and emphasize that upon our de novo review of the totality of the record , the 
Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
12 
Matter of A-T-F-A-
lowest of four assignable levels) wage, and hence one not likely distinguishable by relatively 
specialized and complex duties. 13 
We have also reviewed the Petitioner's description of duties for the proffered position, and the 
nature of its operations. We have considered the Petitioner's assertion that USCIS placed undue 
influence on its size and the nature of its business. While we concur that USCIS should not limit its 
review to the size of a petitioner and must consider the actual responsibilities of the proffered 
position, we find that it is reasonable to assume that the size of an employer's business has or could 
have an impact on the claimed duties of a particular position. See EG Enters., Inc. v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec., 467 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Thus, the size of a petitioner may be 
considered as a component of the nature of the petitioner's business. Additionally, as with the 
matter at hand, when the job description provided only identifies' general duties that could fall within 
the occupations of several occupations that do not require a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty 
to perform them, a review of the nature of the petitioning organization may assist in determining a 
realistic need for the beneficiary to perform specialty-occupation level duties. Here, we have 
reviewed the totality of the record to determine whether the Petitioner has more likely than not 
established that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
Upon our review, the record is absent any probative documentary evidence to support a finding that 
the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary in relation to the Petitioner's claimed operations are 
sufficiently complex and specialized to require the theoretical and practical application of a body of 
highly specialized knowledge, and the services of an individual with a bachelor's or higher degree in 
the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United 
States. , The record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as 
more c'omplex or specialized than positions that can be performed by persons without at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or its equivalent. Upon review of the totality of the record, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its proffered position is one with duties sufficiently 
specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
As the Petitioner emphasized on appeal, it must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 
Beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0). In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. !d. Because the Petitioner has not satisfied one of the criteria at 
13 The Petitioner's designation of this position as a Level I, entry-level position undermines its claim that the position is 
particularly complex, specialized, or unique compared to other positions within the same occupation. Nevertheless, a 
Level I wage-designation does not preclude a proffered position from classification as a specialty occupation, just as a 
Level IV wage-designation does not definitively' establish such a classification. In certain occupations (e.g., doctors or 
lawyers), a Level I, entry-level position would still require a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or 
its equivalent, for entry. Similarly, however, a Level IV wage-designation would not reflect that an occupation qualifies 
as a specialty occupation if that higher-level position does not have an entry requirement of at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. That is, a position's wage-level designation may be a relevant factor but is not 
itself conclusive evidence that a proffered position meets the requirements of section 2 I 4(i)(l) of the Act. 
13 
Matter of A-T-F-A-
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A), it has not demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition denied for this reason. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
We do not need to examine the issue of the Beneficiary's qualifications, because the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
' In other words, the Beneficiary's credentials to perform a particular job are relevant only when the 
job is found to be a specialty occupation. 
As discussed in this decision, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence regarding the 
proffered position to determine whether it will require a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty or its equivalent. Absent this determination that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty or its equivalent is required to perform the duties of the proffered position, it also 
cannot be determine~ whether the Beneficiary possesses that degree or its equivalent. Therefore, we 
need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications further. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. ' 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-F-A-, ID# 11466 (AAO Nov. 8, 2016) 
14